the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation and Bias Correction of Probabilistic Volcanic Ash Forecasts
Abstract. Satellite retrievals of column mass loading of volcanic ash are incorporated into the HYSPLIT transport and dispersion modeling system for source determination, bias correction, and forecast verification of probabilistic ash forecasts of a short eruption of Bezymianny in Kamchatka. The probabilistic forecasts are generated with a dispersion model ensemble created by driving HYSPLIT with 31 members of the NOAA global ensemble forecast system (GEFS). An inversion algorithm is used for source determination. A bias correction procedure called cumulative distribution function (CDF) matching is used to very effectively reduce bias. Evaluation is performed with rank histograms, reliability diagrams, fractions skill score, and precision recall curves. Particular attention is paid to forecasting the end of life of the ash cloud. We find indications that the simulated dispersion of the ash cloud does not represent the observed dispersion well, resulting in difficulty simulating the observed evolution of the ash cloud area. This can be ameliorated with the bias correction procedure. Individual model runs struggle to capture the exact placement and shape of the small pieces of ash left near the end of the clouds lifetime. The ensemble tends to be overconfident, but does capture the range of possibilities of ash cloud placement. Probabilistic forecasts such as ensemble relative frequency of exceedance and agreement in percentile levels are suited for strategies in which areas with certain concentrations or mass loadings of ash need to be avoided with a chosen amount of confidence.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(7226 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7226 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-290', Arnau Folch, 26 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-290/egusphere-2022-290-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alice Crawford, 18 Jun 2022
We thank Arnau Folch for the careful review and thoughtful comments which will improve the clarity of our manuscript. Some responses are posted in the attached supplement. Comments which are not addressed here will be addressed in the final review period
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alice Crawford, 18 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-290', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jul 2022
Comments on “Evaluation and Bias Correction of Probabilistic Volcanic Ash Forecasts” by Crawford et al.
I think that the manuscript is an interesting contribution to the analysis and the interpretation of volcanic ash forecasts.
My main concern is that the large number of techniques/metrics presented leaves too little space to each of them for a proper and detailed presentation, and because of that the manuscript becomes hard to follow. A lot of times, the description of the methods are too vague and it is not easy to understand what is computed and how it is computed.
My strong suggestion is to expand the description of the methods with more details, and to put some intermediate figures with the steps in the appendix or in the supplementary materials.
You can find more detailed comments in the supplement (pdf).
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-290', Arnau Folch, 26 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-290/egusphere-2022-290-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alice Crawford, 18 Jun 2022
We thank Arnau Folch for the careful review and thoughtful comments which will improve the clarity of our manuscript. Some responses are posted in the attached supplement. Comments which are not addressed here will be addressed in the final review period
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alice Crawford, 18 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-290', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jul 2022
Comments on “Evaluation and Bias Correction of Probabilistic Volcanic Ash Forecasts” by Crawford et al.
I think that the manuscript is an interesting contribution to the analysis and the interpretation of volcanic ash forecasts.
My main concern is that the large number of techniques/metrics presented leaves too little space to each of them for a proper and detailed presentation, and because of that the manuscript becomes hard to follow. A lot of times, the description of the methods are too vague and it is not easy to understand what is computed and how it is computed.
My strong suggestion is to expand the description of the methods with more details, and to put some intermediate figures with the steps in the appendix or in the supplementary materials.
You can find more detailed comments in the supplement (pdf).
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
342 | 91 | 11 | 444 | 10 | 6 |
- HTML: 342
- PDF: 91
- XML: 11
- Total: 444
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Tianfeng Chai
Binyu Wang
Allison Ring
Barbara Stunder
Christopher Loughner
Michael Pavolonis
Justin Sieglaff
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7226 KB) - Metadata XML